I know it’s easy to see Zionists and Christian nationalist psychopaths, and fear the irrationality of so much of the world, but that’s not the full nature of religion - and many of us see much more than that.

I mean, many of us have faith beyond that. I gave $10 to a homeless guy today. I trusted beyond rationality he wasn’t going to spend it on a bottle of scotch. Even when it’s trust in other humans, that’s faith. Even when it doesn’t make sense, trust and faith in people’s empathy, or a higher purpose keeps some people going.

I’m definitely an atheist, but occasionally I’ve seen spots of really nice elements to religion - that have often become less visible in the recent cases of religious extremism.

I wouldn’t peg this right on Trump. AIPAC influence has been scary even during Democratic presidencies.

My fervent hope is by getting the word out, we can demonize them the same way people hate Elon Musk; and without marginalizing Jewish populations (who are, in many ways, their victims too)

Another good one:

If your boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. If he demands integrity, give him loyalty.

Actually, that’s Lieutenant Columbo of the LAPD.

That's partly my point; just getting them to realize how easy it is to make the assertion. Ideally, you'd make the claim to someone that's white/MAGA, just to get them to scoff at the statement and say "Sure, I'm a citizen! It says so right...hold on..."

If someone's psychotically self-protective and carries their passport in their back pocket, they can deflect the argument. If they can't produce it on the spot, start mockingly shouting for ICE. See how quickly they fall back on white privilege.

Ask them to prove they’re a citizen. Driver’s licenses don’t count. Being white doesn’t count (could be Russian).

Mario!? Who would have thought Nintendo would revive one of their oldest properties?

I’d recommend you take a look at a Zeteo interview of two Congress members who stood against them. It can be more complex than straight bribery.

https://youtu.be/o_TkExbKbG4

For one thing, taking money from AIPAC isn’t just about greed; it’s also about using that money to campaign and help people be aware of what issues they’re fighting for. (Yes, I’m aware for some, it’s all about power and greed)

For another, AIPAC money can become an enemy: These Congress members got an army of mailings demonizing them as soon as they voted against an issue Israel wanted in their corner. They were voted out of office, and never got to pass the causes they wanted for their communities.

Should they take AIPAC money? Absolutely not. Do I see why they’d take it? Absolutely.

There are good democrats out there - many of us have met them in person. Just that the leadership, and threats from AIPAC money, twist them into not doing everything they can.

I wouldn’t be so pessimistic as to say EVERY person in the US looking into politics is corrupt. Just make sure to actually name people when lambasting them, not paint a wide swath.

Would we ever have a chance of tying employee termination to a “reason”? Eg, if the company has decided to end a certain venture, downsize, or is down in revenue, each could be a reason - but if investor releases contradict those, then they could be investigated for it and possibly have the termination reversed, much like many of the recent DOGE firings (because no one in Congress said to downsize)

Probably a vague and incomplete thought.

It'd be very curious if there was literally no country on the planet that permitted him entry. I was about to say Russia, but he's only been useful as a pawn in the US to them.

When that’s characters, I just accept it. Like, “Oh, I guess I don’t get to try out this character? I’ll level up others instead and see how well I can do.”

Oh, what a fucked up world we live in that we see a school shooting as “not so bad, all things considered”…

I’m undoubtedly kind of frustrated about this “proving tariffs right” - but it remains to be shown whether this works. Very likely, even if/when they achieve scale, prices won’t come down for a very long time.

And it skips over the fact that there were so many ways to achieve this end without causing so much harm to so many industries that can’t do the same.

I play a gacha game and have spent $0 on it. But I can imagine that sort of psychological insulation is not quite so common.

So in a lot of ways, it’s just the Asian term for loot box games, something that western games shied away from a bit after the Battlefront 2 controversy and EU attention, which Disney got embroiled in.

I'd counter with examples like Gabe Newell and Steam.

Gabe's estimated worth is around $6bil. Steam is commonly regarded as the cheapest source of games, and has some of the highest average pay at Valve. There are absolutely arguments to be made around exploitation within the CS:GO gambling market, but that's still probably not a majority of Valve's business and income, and they'd have similar numbers regardless. They made a good product, and have generated value from it.

Fine, one exception, right? Except with low visibility on their own internal practices, there's probably many other wealthy people like them - who have contributed something valuable, which puts them on the first rung of a machine that will, almost through comparatively little effort on their part, catapult their wealth.

There's something to be said about what happens naturally through inertia, rather than due to willful malice. We are seeing lots of willful malice, make no mistake - but quite a lot of it is simple indecisiveness. A CEO who is shown a study by his shareholders that if you offer one raise, everyone will want one - and decides to just go with the suggestion not to give any raises. A wealthy person whose accountant has the idea of hiding taxes offshore, just because "everyone is doing it".

These people would not be harmed by tighter restrictions on investment opportunities, closing the loopholes letting people borrow from themselves in so many absurd ways. But many of them are not nearly so active in the exploitation as you seem to suggest.

To extend the example to someone like myself; I would generally say I make more income than I need to survive. I'm no millionaire, but to support myself I don't need much. I also have no workers underneath me. In these current times, I have done my best to locate worthwhile causes to give up some of that money to. But that act takes time and energy I don't always have, and given my habits I have a LOT of mailers and spam from less reputable charities of many kinds. Bill Gates founded a charity, but it's easy to imagine many billionaires won't bother.

And to further extend my own example: I would be okay with paying more in taxes if it meant a safer world for people with less means than myself - people who often do more valuable work for the world like teachers, nonprofits, and social workers. The task of allocating that distribution and sending checks myself just isn't something I know how to do easily. I do my best, but it's stressful and I often worry about whether I'm getting exploited by bad causes.

Again - I'll emphasize that everything you're saying is horrible about billionaires is very true about a sizable number of them - probably most we could name. And, I think in a fair future system, it would be much harder to become a billionaire due to tax nets redirecting wealth to better causes. But I also think some current billionaires have been riding a wave of a broken system without actively wanting it to be harmful.

The point, though, is not to garner sympathy for a small minority of a small minority. The point is that their capacity to effect change through their wealth is important enough for the act of change that we shouldn't actively antagonize them all by incorrectly grouping them. We're coming for their wealth, yes, but not for their heads (unless they've cheated or stolen their way up). And that wealth is meant to be put to good use.

And newsflash, any of us with retirement accounts are making use of that same stock market.

It's like blaming anyone with a smartphone for exploiting rare mineral mining. It is absolutely fair to hate the game instead of the players (even the successful ones), especially when so much of its designed to disconnect you from the elements of dehumanization.

The issue I have with this sentiment is that some percentage of the rich made active pursuits to deny our freedoms and destroy democracy; while others were…just quiet and uninvolved in politics.

What’s more, much as it makes sense to change our hyper-capitalistic society, this is the society we’re working within in order to make change. Even printing a poster that explains why capitalism is bad costs money. By that token, we will likely need some support from some wealthy people to make change. And yes, that support exists to some degree, and no, we don’t literally need to have “more money” than the opposition.

So maybe you were just shortening sentiments for the sake of a snarky post, which is fine. We can pursue better tax rates for wealthier people, while also pursuing criminal investigations and metaphorical guillotines for the Heritage Foundation. Literally seize all their money. If I’m to make one point though, you don’t want those quiet wealthy people to feel that the Heritage Foundation are their only friends.

I know, man. There’s lots of people I dream about taking a crowbar to. But when I’m done with the violent rhetoric in my head, I think of the most practical actions.

Two hours is the length of some high-budget media; eg, movies and plays.

I know that some games are slow-burn, but that’s something people have to weigh themselves. Ideally, you’d enjoy the slow burn itself. When I tried to “force myself through to the Good Part of Nier Automata”, I ended up hating the whole thing.